This is a very very intense claim, and if true, would represent a monumental institutional failure across hundreds or even thousands of disparate organizations.
Do you have any data to support your hunch?
Strong claims require strong evidence.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/first-death-row-exoneration-inv...
How did we do that? I never heard this: certainly 10% of people on death row weren't exonerated by DNA? This is some kind of shaky extrapolation I assume?
It only took a few years.
They've since changed and expanded the standard "DNA loci" to compensate.
I disagree wrt reasonableness. It’s just too big a leap. There are a lot of crimes, and not many land you on death row.
Is there any argument that less-scrutinized cases would have a lower level of false convictions?
The big claim is here: the state has grandiose claims that the overwhelming majority is fair, but there is no proof of it.
Therefore the state should prove that more than 90% of the cases are legitimate, fair, not coerced, and not motivated by the pressure to interrupt the proceedings.
97% of people choose plea deals or out-of-court settlement, it is a huge amount.
It means that in real practice, not imaginary internet, people who face court consider that justice is a big machine that can crush you no matter if you are innocent or not.
In the best case you are acquitted at the end, but you are guaranteed to bear the financial burden, fear and stress as a punishment.
Being held in jail before trial is a very convincing reason to plea deal too.
It's a system engineered to make pleading the only reasonable option, no matter if you did anything or not.
This sounds like you’re imagining how prosecutors as a group sort of feel about things, generally, and that this notion you’ve thought of outweighs the demonstrable real-world system where prosecutors are awarded for convictions, full stop.
That's the rule for criminal court in the US, but each of us is free to pick his own standard for his own purposes.
It is disingenuous to weasel out of proving one claim by making another, or saying “look over here”
Also, outrageous claims in opposite directions can both be bullshit.
Even single digit percent is hard to believe, but its possible, but double digits you are talking China or Russia levels of state corruption and even there I doubt its that high.
Edit; upon closer examination. I did imply in my last paragraph that your claim was outrageous. Bit of a gaffe considering I’m the agitator here. My apologies.
If you would like to begin trying to answer these, I recommend starting with submitting some FOIAs. Considering your stance seems to be that you won't believe what others are telling you -- I promise you that you'll be surprised.
It’s easy to say things that sound true on the surface, but even if true, it’s still irresponsible to say them on the back of a hunch.
This is done because there's an exception in our constitution for slavery "as punishment for a crime" and well all know that capitalism loves slave labor.